ST Alpha - "Throw out the gender restriction, but keep the couple restriction. Why one and not the other? -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 183

In response to "Children are a protected class. There's no equality under the law for hetero and gay couples." by Will Hunting

Throw out the gender restriction, but keep the couple restriction. Why one and not the other? -- nm

Posted by Dr.Vermin (aka Dr.Vermin) Nov 11 '08, 14:28

(No message)

Responses:

you can't equate using a child for sex, and a loving relationship between two adults (of any gender). you just can't. drop it. -- nm - Andie Remembers Nov 11, 14:31 4
- I think he's going with polygamy here. -- nm - Dano Nov 11, 14:32 3
  - but couples don't apply to polyamorous relationships, right? (i'm confused.) -- nm - Andie Remembers Nov 11, 14:34 2
    - That's his point. Why remove the restrictions based on gender and not also remove the restriction of only allowing couples. -- nm - Ender Nov 11, 14:42 1
      - Because for legal purposes the point of the union is stability of property claims, and not gender or orientation. -- nm - Max Nov 11, 14:45
Becuase at this point, hetero couples are legally allowed to marry, as you've recently found out. Gay couples can't. - Will Hunting Nov 11, 14:29 2
- You're not answering my question. - Dr.Vermin Nov 11, 14:33 1
  - That's a different argument; one that isn't in this debate. It's your strawman. -- nm - Will Hunting Nov 11, 14:36
why not, indeed? -- nm - znufrii Nov 11, 14:29

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.